@TheLordAwaked It's also a Christian symbol, which trumps Baal. Duh. We use it the way you use a white dove, which is a symbol for Aphrodite, the goddess of sex.
To deny the Word is denial of Christ. How many scriptural references are in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? To hold words of men above the Word is the antithesis of 1st commandment.
@musico747 I am a Missouri-Synod Lutheran. Our doctrine is laid out clearly in the Book of Concord, with every single article in our confessions of faith derived entirely from the Word which is absolute Truth (2Tim 3:16-17 & 2Pet 1:20-21). Early Church Fathers are also quoted for faithful apostolic guidance. If anyone tried to give solid scriptural support for every article of faith in Catechism of the Catholic Church to stand on, much of it would fall flat on its face. It's just not possible.
@DrewOchsner Our Doctrine is laid out very neatly as well. The Catechism is fine, but it also dumbs a lot of things down for the common man. If you're really interested in what Catholics teach, you should purchase the book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. It's a must have and it will dispel a lot of these false conceptions of the Church. God Bless!
@musico747 Out of curiosity, is this book itself subscribed to as an official promulgation of the Vatican, or at least commended by the Pope or other church leaders as a faithful and consistent demonstration of Church dogma? Further, does it give rigorous citation from all the sources of authority recognized by the Cc for the positions it endorses? If so, I'll buy it (previously, I thought your catechism was such a document--we recognize Luther's two catechisms as such, hence the confusion).
@augustinian2017 It's vigorous. It includes key Latin phrases, references to scripture, early Church Fathers, and other documents that are quite frankly over my head. It includes the fundamental dogmas, hence the title, along with an explanation of the background and errors. If you want to learn definitively what the Church teaches, buy the book. Again it's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. I think it's published in both German and English.
@musico747 Thank you--when my funds allow it, I'll buy it. Likewise, if you would like to know where Lutherans (specifically Missouri Synod) stand and why, (as DrewOschner said) the best place to look is the Book of Concord with a Bible in hand to check its references (Patristic references are typically quoted in text when mentioned). There are several English translations available, the Kolb edition being a good scholarly edition, Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions a good layman's edition.
@musico747 Likewise, it is possible to get BCC in the original languages. An electronic version is available from Northwestern Publishing House for $50. As a basic system of reformation doctrine, Melancthon's 1521 Loci Communes is also excellent, and the crux of Luther's teaching on Justification, outside the BCC, can be had from his Lectures/Commentary on Galatians. This was the book that moved my father to Lutheranism (after considering the Catholic church).
@musico747 The Catechism of the Catholic Church has little Divinely authoritative evidence to stand on. Theologians such as Luther, Melanchthon, etc. established the Book of Concord, which has what the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not (and could not) have. The documents that make up the BoC have clear evidence and proofs from Holy Scripture for every singe article of faith. We teach what we know to be the Truth, because our all of our doctrine stands most firmly the Word of God.
@DrewOchsner Who taught you that logic? Belief in God is personal! It cannot be dictated by the Pope or Martin Luther. If I follow your argument then you disown Martin Luther. He hated the idea of Catholics buying indulgences! If you are trying to sell out your BOC what difference does it have from the Catholics selling indulgences?
@musico747 Consider the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit of Truth descended on the apostles and they were baptized with the Spirit and fire. As the Spirit converted thousands of people through the apostles, was Peter the only one building Christs church? Or, was it God building His church through (not on) the apostles? The first papists were the first to depart from the apostolic church's unity. There were 5 patriarchal church bodies for several centuries before one (Rome) claimed superiority.
@DrewOchsner Those Church bodies still exist as the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and they're legitimate Churches, even though they're all not in full communion with Rome. So sleep well if you're Eastern Orthodox, but my guess is that you're Church is descendent from Martin Luther, Calvin, or some other "reformer". These aren't true Churches, though they may possess shreds of truth in their doctrine, but they're also in obstinate error.
@musico747 Take a careful look at the original Greek text: κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅ|δου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.
- Πέτρος - capitalized because it's the name "Peter" ____ - πέτρᾳ - Koine Greek word for rock or stone ___ They are different; do you see the difference?
@augustinian2017 According to what the Lord Jesus says in Luke 15:7, yes he is definitely worth the time. (even if he does allow the evil one to make his case a difficult one to deal with). For one to say (and believe) that any member of the body of Christ is not worth one's time, it's like saying Christ is not worth their time.
Augie, it's not the character limitation which makes you describe as your "argument" hard to follow. What i provided was not a debatable proposition but a statement of fact--check your own Bible if you dispute this.
@tommerrigan1956 "I believe that there is on earth, through the whole wide world, no more than one holy, common, Christian Church, which is nothing else than the congregation, or assembly of the saints, i.e., the pious, believing men on earth, which is gathered, preserved, and ruled by the Holy Ghost, and daily increased by means of the sacraments and the Word of God." -Dr. Martin Luther
@tommerrigan1956 To refer to Christian congregations as the Roman (catholic) church (aka: Catholicism), the Evangelical catholic church (aka: true Lutheranism), or the Eastern catholic church (aka: Orthodox), etc. is like referring to separate body parts (like the hand, leg, and neck) within the body of Christ which IS the one holy catholic Church (aka: Christianity).
Based on that which you have written thus far, i suspect you are unfamiliar with Wittgenstein. Rather than plucking theories from the air, or demanding of language logical consistency, you should analyze language as it is actually used. So suggested Wittgenstein. Exact definitions of meaning and truth, for example, and large parts of metaphysics altogether must be given up. Far from analyzing thought and its consequences, philosophy must merely describe it.
Augie, get it right: epistemic deals only with cognitive knowledge; epistemology deals with the validity and truth of that knowledge. You "know" many things, but so much of what you imagine as knowledge is rooted in falsehood. Comprende?
@tommerrigan1956 This is more commonly referred in contemporary philosophy as propositional knowledge, and is the type epistemology most generally concerns itself with. The third type is essentially know-how. Central to epistemology are the relations between belief, knowledge, and certainty.
@tommerrigan1956 This is more commonly referred in contemporary philosophy as propositional knowledge, and is the type epistemology most generally concerns itself with. The third type is essentially know-how. Central to epistemology are the relations between belief, knowledge, and certainty.
@augustinian2017 Yes, i know you know how to do a search. i could have told you that without you quoting from your source. i studied epistemology as one of the required courses in my philosophy major at Notre Dame.
@tommerrigan1956 Copy my text. Try to find it online. You won't. It's mine. I was in the process of typing it for you when last responded. Seeing your post, I began to past what I had already. I can keep writing if you like, or I can stop.
I am currently writing my bachelor thesis--it's largely epistemological. I've never used a thesaurus in any of the 27 credits I've had (so far) in philosophy, and I don't plan to use one while for my Master's or Ph.D either.
@tommerrigan1956 To come to an understanding of what propositional knowledge itself is, it is first necessary to examine what any example presupposes. First, it presupposes the existence of the knower; propositions that are known must be known by someone. Knowledge requires subjectivity, which presupposes consciousness. Thus, knowers must be conscious beings.
@tommerrigan1956 My point? My usage of 'epistemic' is justified. Are there any other epistemological contentions you wish to discuss? Perhaps the difficulty physicalists face justifying the existence of propositional knowledge? This would, of course, stray into the philosophy of mind, as the chief difficulty arises from the failure of the identity thesis.
@augustinian2017 Get off your high horse. i suspect i have at least three times as many credit hours in philosophy as you. Regarding usage of epistemic versus epistemological . . .You have not presented a single shred of evidence for your position, nor even provided the epistemic infrastructure upon which your claims could be seen as truth a priori. We both know you goofed and your goal at this point seems to justify your error. Remember, knowledge may be the result of reflection as well.
@tommerrigan1956 I did actually argue for the usage--the 500 character cap probably made it hard to follow. I can send you the argument, if you desire. As I believe your comments which follow might be your own arguments, I'll refrain from commenting until I've analyzed them.
@augustinian2017 You would do well to recall Descartes' Meditations. To refresh your memory, Descartes defines knowledge in terms of doubt. While distinguishing rigorous knowledge (scientia) and lesser grades of conviction (persuasio), he writes:
"I distinguish the two as follows: there is conviction when there remains some reason which might lead us to doubt, but knowledge is conviction based on a reason so strong that it can never be shaken by any stronger reason."
@augustinian2017 Before suggesting your notion of "analytical philosophy," i suggest first you study it. Perhaps then your imagined well-reasoned approach would have some cognitive merit. Your quasi epistemological theories are like leaky pipes: they do not hold water. Defend your positions with logic, not defensive criticism of that which is in opposition to them. "A man can only attain knowledge with the help of those who possess it. One must learn from him who knows." ~George Gurdjieff
@tommerrigan1956 Can you demonstrate that this is not from a result that popped up on your browser? You have failed to demonstrate at every point not only your own theological prowess but also your philosophical propensities. Even this comment is merely suggesting how knowledge is acquired; how can one know how it is acquired without knowing what knowing is. Even then, try arguing your position. That is an essential component of the nature of analytic philosophy, the only respectable approach.
@augustinian2017 You may have convictions, but that does not mean you are right. This is NOT a "Lutheran site," as you stipulated. This is a YouTube site. You continue to state i have "failed to demonstrate" (seems to be one of your favorite phrases: could it be because that is what your professors often write on your papers?), yet you provide no cogent, limpid, or lucid rationale in defense of your positons, which generally are opinions disguised as fact. Try arguing instead of parroting.
@augustinian2017 Can you demonstrate anything you have written is not copied and pasted from YOUR browser? You have provided no original thoughts, much less any cogent, limpid, or lucid reasoning, deductive or inductive. Your notion of reasoned argument seems merely to be criticizing that which you are unable to refute: this is not debating a proposition but emotionally defending an opinion. In your own words, try arguing your position--particularly without parroting something read online.
@augustinian2017 HOW can one know? Is there no analytical philosophy in the curriculum you claim to have studied? Through forms, intentions, essences, notions, concepts, phantasms, images, patient intellect, sensation, and reflection. Cognitive processes — the activity of coming to know the "real" world — begins in the world, works through the senses, and culminates in the intellect. This was the basis for his epistemological theories. The basis for your "knowledge" seems to be opinion.
@augustinian2017 You need to brush up on your Aquinas. He argued that present in the divine intellect are universal forms. On the basis of these God created the world, bringing forms to be realized, formally, in the world, particularized through matter. Through processes of cognition these forms come to be in our intellect. His empirical bent is reflected in the requirement that we proceed via deriving the forms from things, recognizing our ability to extract abstract forms involves God.
@augustinian2017 Oh, and in answer to your question, we can continue as long as you like, although based on your subjective responses, i suspect neither one of us is going to convice the other. How you moved from "Roman" Catholic to epistemology puzzles me, but no more so than your claim to have provided well reasoned arguments in defense of your positions.
@augustinian2017 Your profile states you have an interest in theology. You would do well to recall we are not saved by faith, but by grace, through God's love. "God is Love. Anyone who lives in love lives in God, and God lives in him." ~1st John 4:16
Any intelligent person would realize John's statement requires no interpretation or exegesis; only a fool pressing his own agenda would argue otherwise.
@tommerrigan1956 You are right, Tom, in saying that God is Love as different verses from the Bible both say and have shown. The verse also says that whoever lives in love lives in God. This is where I find your arguments confusing, Tom. For almost every comment you have made toward other people is derogatory and not loving. For your sake and for other's salvation, resolve whatever issues you may have in your life so that your comments do not mock or thrash out.
-ep·i·ste·mic adj. Of, relating to, or involving knowledge; cognitive.
e·piste·mo·logi·cal adj., 1. (Philosophy) concerned with or arising from epistemology, 2. (Philosophy) (of a philosophical problem) requiring an account of how knowledge of the given subject could be obtained
My usage was correct; their semantic domains overlap in the context of my post. As Epistemic is shorter, I used it.
@augustinian2017 No, your usage in this context was not correct, just like your faulty knowledg of Catholicism (no "Roman"). But then what should i expect from an apostate? One of my degrees is in philosophy. You too may have studied philosophy; it's a shame you didn't learn anything from it.
@tommerrigan1956 If you are confident that my usage was not correct, then please explain how it was not correct. Be explicit. If my usage was wrong, then I will learn the proper usage from your explanation. If you cannot explain why my usage is wrong, then you cannot know that it was wrong, and therefore cannot claim such an improper usage as a mark of my ignorance.
@augustinian2017 Why? You appear incapable of believing anything which does not jive with your beliefs. Why would this be any different? It would be a waste of time. You don't have the first clue what epistemology is, you only know how to use a thesaurus. Get a life.
@tommerrigan1956 Epistemology is, roughly, the study of knowledge. There are three main types of knowledge. Two of them were well expressed by Bertrand Russell as knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. Knowledge by acquaintance conforms to the German word kennen, whereas knowledge by description conforms to the German word wissen (Latin scio or Greek ginwskw).
@tommerrigan1956 Likewise, the propositions of knowledge, excluding solipcist views, are not the object known but rather a representation of another object. Thus, there is the object of knowledge and the mental representation of that object. All propositional knowledge is mental. As such, the word epistemic, refined to the mental, was in perfect usage in my earlier post, as all propostitional knowledge is mental.
Once again, you are not conducting proper polemics. Did Aquinas ever merely assert his claims? Did Augustine? No--they argued their positions. You should do likewise. You must demonstrate how the semantic domain of "Lutheran" is linguistically "apostate heretic", rather than what your representation of "Lutheran" corresponds to.
I pass no judgment. Passage of judgment belongs to our Lord and He has fulfilled His promise in that respect by sending Christ, His Son, to take all of our sins upon Himself.
I appreciate all prayers, thank you, and I offer mine for you as well. I, however, will not be addressing my prayers to Mary or to any other soul in Heaven, but to our Savior and hers.
You are not a "French Protestant." You are rightly called "French Heretic." By the bye, there is no "Roman Catholic Church." Perhaps that is the source of your bewilderment. (Or is it just ignorance?) There is, however, a Catholic Church.
Martin Luther wrote this song shortly after he wrote the hateful book "On Jews and Their Lies."It said they should be killed and their property burned.YOU CAN BUY THIS BOOK! It is demonic. Hitler loved it as he did the hatred Paul wrote about Jews.How can any followr of Jesus sing this song from an instigator of murder.Not only did he hate Jews,he hated peasants.Jesus identifies Paul in Rev2 as the false apostle and the one teaching Balaak Doctrine.Saul says all rejected him from Jesus'church
@nauort23 you might want to look at early copies of the written music for this great hymn. This "syncopated" version as you call it is much closer to the original than most versions. I personally love it because it is the version I grew up singing.
@nauort23 And MY opinion that you are an excommunicated apostate likely to be consigned to hell stands. Since we Catholics are not "RC," you can have any opinion you choose, even if, as in this case, it the wrong opinion. If you are not Catholic, you are an apostate, simple as that. There is still time to convert. i shall keep you in my prayers. By the way, we are saved by grace, not faith...
@tommerrigan1956 Gee, with such a stellar example of (not Roman) Catholic as yourself, it's a wonder I ever left!!!! Someone should nail you to a cross.
@nauort23 And you should ask the Wizard for a brain, as you're continued petulance strains credulity. How someone can continually demonstrate ignorance of ecclesiastical history is beyond me. i must conclude that you do so intentionally, for no one can be that stupid by chance. We Catholics will continue to pray for you, Protestant Heretic.
@nauort23 And with you as such a stellar example of Protestant Apostate, it's a wonder ANYONE ever left. Someone should not merely nail you to a cross, but bury you underneath one as well. You have certainly taken to heart Jesus' command to love one's enemies. When i read your jibberish, i am reminded he also commanded us not to cast our pearls before swine. Take care, Porky.
@nauort23 Have no idea what your opinion of "the RC church" is, since there is no "Roman" Catholic Church. There is, however, a Catholic Church. However, if you insist on identifying us with names with which we do not identify ourselves, then at least be consisten and identify your denomination as "Protestant Apostate and Heretic." You may misunderstand the truth, but please do not misrepresent it soley to make yourself feel better about how Catholics identify themselves.
@nauort23 First, it is not the "Roman" Catholic Church. It is not your prerogative to name us as you choose. None of the 16 documents of Vatican II refers to "Roman" Catholic. You may be a Protestant, and in our eyes you are an apostate (get a dictionary), but we don't label you the Apostate Protestants. Let us each call ourselves as we choose. If you want to call yourself a Catholic as well, go ahead. But don't tell us we are "Roman" Catholics simply so you can feel included as a Catholic
I had to look at about 10 videos to find this version! So glad I found it. This is the version from my childhood. Just lovely. My church always sings the other one and I miss this older, more traditional sound. Thank you for posting.
@gasness1 Thanks for posting this great video! It's nice to hear Dr. Martin Luther's original hymn tune that he wrote for this hymn with a closer translation of the German "Ein Feste Burg ist Unser Gott". I love both versions, but this one is scarcely heard here in the US though.
So I pray, that the Lord may guide you all, in hopes that all Catholics may come to see the Truth and reject the heresies that have divided us for so long. May He cast out Satan and his demons who have been at work in the Roman Church. Lord, I pray for the pope, that you might strengthen him so he might restore Your Truth to the church as it was faithfully taught by St. Peter and St. Paul, and that he may restore his duties by making not his, but Your words the authority of the church. Amen.
@DrewOchsner So i pray, that the Protestant apostates may recognize the truth rests in the One Holy Catholic Church, and not in the myths perpetrated by an overly fat former Augustinian monk who married an equally tubby nun. There is no "Roman" Church: may our Lord Jesus Christ remove the scales from your eyes and the malice from your heart which makes you spread your vindictive lies. We are Catholics--not "Roman" Catholics--and you are a Protestant heretic unaware of the error of your ways.
@coolerking04 Lutheranism is merely what the catholic church should be Catholicism stripped of heresy. Luther did not want to create a new church, but as one of the world's premier theologians, his heart could not let the heresies continue unchallenged. He brought the heresy and abuses before the pope and was eventually excommunicated. Slowly (very), over the last 400+ years many of the things Luther preached, have become practiced in the RCc. They have also adopted a lot of Lutheran liturgy.
Don't try a standard time signature on this (more original) setting of A Mighty Fortress. There are measures of different lengths. You organize this like plainsong: by phrase.
Scandinavian Protestants , I entreat you , in the name of the so many martyrs of the genuine Protestant vision of Christianity , not to fall in the trap that the Roman Catholic Church , which has the unimaginable pretention to be the ONLY truly Christian Church ( !!! ) , has set , very skillfully , for you .
The Roman Catholic Hierarchy has absolutely NO BIBLICAL BASIS , whereas the diverse Protestant forms of Church organization do .
Stay faithful to the Spirit of the Reformation !!!
The Catholic Church actually compiled the Bible and preserved it through the dark ages. There are very few Scandinavian Protestants, the nations where Lutheranism spread to have become the most secular in the world.
The only meaningful Christianity remaining in Europe is Catholic.
Strange that in Catholic England most of the priests and monks didn't know the Lord's prayer or the 10 commandments. Religious paganism is very different from Biblical Christianity.
"Catholic England"? The official state religion of England is the Anglican Church, a Protestant group founded by King Henry during the Reformation. I am surprised you don't know that.
Romanism is idolatrous, just look at the treatment of the second commandment (Ex.20.4) to see how its catechism butchers the Bible. It is a kind of Samaritanism (2Ki 17:29). At the time of the English reformation, surveys of the still Roman priesthood and monasteries found appalling ignorance of basic Bible teachings. I am British.
Oh I see you are somone to take seriously... you really exposed the whole scam we had going for so long, I guess this means I can't interest you in buying an indulgence?
@coolerking04 I have been praying for you and every other member of The Roman Catholic church for years. While the Vatican Councils (esp. 2nd) abolished many of the RC heresies that ignited the reformers, they further embraced some from Council of Trent. The Holy Rosary was sacrilegiously defiled by addition to the 'Hail Mary' requesting her prayers; what was once pure quotes from St. Luke's Gospel, is now a blatant defiance of God's Word.
(1 Tim 2:5 & John14:6). Eternal DEATH is very serious!
@DrewOchsner Drew, thank you for you prayers. Interestingly, I think conservative protestants like yourself would have, in some ways, appreciated the Pre Vatican II Church a bit more (it was, for lack of better term, more hardcore than things are today.) I am not aware of any doctrines the council changed though, it mostly changed some areas of emphasis and externals. Also, yes I suppose some changes (liturgy in the vernacular) may even have been designed to appeal to Protestants.
@coolerking04 Why is it that blessed mother of Christ miraculously cries through her statues, paintings, and depictions? Why is it that the1600's a paralyzed girl vowed to Mary that she would become religious, and made the virgin mother her "mistress" after she recovered miraculously. She was showing her gratefulness to Mary, but it was God who healed her, not Mary. She entered a convent and Jesus Christ Himself appeared to St. Margaret Mary and opened up His Chest and showed her his Heart.
@DrewOchsner@coolerking04 "I want to show them the treasures of My Heart, and give them new graces to draw them from the pit of the eternal fire towards which mortal sin hurls them. In order to accomplish this, I have chosen you precisely because of your weakness and your ignorance. Thus will they see clearly that everything is coming from Me." As a Catholic, I'm sure you are familiar with the Sacred Heart story and devotions. Why do you think these happened in Catholic churches?
@coolerking04 Roman Catholicism grew out of Biblical Christianity, but it is NOT Biblical Christianity. Their rejection of "sola scriptura" as well teaching of the primacy of papal authority and church tradition, are in fact, the very antithesis of Biblical (scriptural) Christianity. Those churches that follow "sola scriptura" by keeping the inspired true Word of God, without exception of any rituals, sacraments, and traditions set forth therein, are the one TRUE catholic (universal) Church!
@DrewOchsner my friend the problem with sola scriptura is it is the anarchist's guide to heaven. There is really no limit to the interpretations one can draw from the Bible. Why is it that some Protestants I know want to see homosexuallity criminalized and others have gay "weddings" in their churches? That is just one example but if everyone is going off the Bible why the chaos? Why the thousands and thousands of Protestant groups always splitnering, founding new churches, and splintering again?
@coolerking04 If the Holy Bible translated accurately from the original texts, and is taken literally, in context, then these false, incomplete, doctrines would not exist. Those who reject the Holy Sacraments as anything other than the bread Eucharistic Holy Communion being the True Body and Blood, Baptism is true rebirth regeneration in and of the Holy Spirit. That is why we have bishops to unify, and pastors to teach God's Word people, and guide them in faith. Paul warns not to lose traditons
@DrewOchsner Nice to hear Martin Luther's Original version of "A mighty fortress is our God" not the new Liberal version that is not the same. It is a shame the Liberals are ruining all religons!
@DrewOchsner Once you cast yourself off the rock of Peter you start to get tossed in the waves. I don't think you understand the sacraments. Baptism is a sacrament, so is marriage, do you reject those things?
@coolerking04 I have quite a few Catholic friends, and very few of my Catholic friends were ever taught to read scripture when they went through confirmation. The few that know scripture only know Matt 16:18-19, and maybe James 2:24 as the basis of their confession of faith. They memorize, the Apostle's Creed, the Lord's prayer, and the Holy Rosary which is a focal misdirection. St. Peter's death on the cross didn't take away the sins of the world. He does not want any of Christ's Glory.
@coolerking04 I fully understand the Sacrament's. However, we have a more rigid definition of Sacrament. So we hold only Holy Communion (Eucharist), and Baptism as holy sacraments. Marriage, reconciliation (Confession), Holy Orders, Confirmation, etc. are sacramental.
@parpaillotcamisard Moron, there is no "Roman Catholic" heirarchy. There is, however, a Pope in the long line of Popes appointed by Jesus. If you insist on calling us Catholics "Roman Catholic," then acknowledge you are Heretical Scandinavian Apostate.
@parpaillotcamisard Catholics, i entreat you, in the name of the One, Holy, Apostolic Church, do not fall into the word game ploy of this ecclesiastical neophyte. He is so ignorant that he insists on calling our Church the "Roman" Catholic Church, although none of the 16 documents of Vatican II, nor "The Catholic Encyclopedia," identify us as such. Just one more insecure Protestant heretic who believes it is his authority to identify denominations as he chooses. Very sad, actually.
@parpaillotcamisard You are right: "The Roman Catholic Hierarchy has absolutely NO BIBLICAL BASIS." This is because there IS no "Roman" Catholic Church, but there is a Catholic Church. If you insiste on prefixing our denomination with "Roman," then i would ask that you prefix your own denomination with "Heretical" or "Apostate." (Hey, if you wish to misrepresent us, then we should take a cue from you and do the same.) None of the documents of Vatican II refers to a "Roman" Catholic Church.
@parpaillotcamisard In that case, according to your logic, you are as much a heretic and apostate as i am a "Roman" Catholic. Your comment about Catholicism demonstrates not only your bigotry, but your ignorance. Stay faithful to the Gospel and not to your imaginary "truth." Remember, it was to Peter that Jesus said, "Upon this rock i will build my church." No doubt you misconstrue the meaning to suit your bias. So it goes. i can teach you, but it is up to you to learn.
Why do you insist on a " material " conception of the apostolic succession ?
This succession is of SPIRITUAL essence , not physical or material !!!
What Jesus asked His disciples to do was to spread the gospel , and to baptize in the Name of the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit ;
The Bible contains explicitely the notion of " universal priesthood " : see I Peter 2 : 5 , etc ... All Christians are on an equal footing before God .
When I read your commentaries , I am , as a French Protestant , bewildered by the confidence and trust most of you have in the Roman Catholic Church .
Do you know that when it is in the majority , it simply does not tolerate other Christian churches ?
In Latin , Southern Europe , Protestants have been exterminated ( and I choose my term ) by this powerful Organisation that the Roman Catholic Church is ;
Well I am not sure what protestants you are directions, Scandinavian Lutherans do not have anything to protest against. The catholics are our friends although we have a different tradition.
@parpaillotcamisard You are not a "French Protestant." You are a French Heretic who is too stupid to know the Catholic Church does not identify itself as "Roman." However, if you choose to continue with this misidentification, then you deserve a special title: "French Asshole Apostate." Has a nice ring to it, eh?
@susichie Ahh, and you believe you service our Lord by passing judgment on me? First remove the redwood tree in your own eye. Does this further the Church? i think not. It is you who do not only our God a disservice, but all who follow your example. i will pray a Hail Mary for you and hope your heart will be healed.
@tommerrigan1956 I don't know what prompted you to begin writing here in the first place, but please desist. You have not presented a single shred of evidence for your position, nor even provided the epistemic infrastructure upon which your claims could be seen as truth a priori. According to your profile you studied philosophy at Notre Dame; please recall these days and actually think before you respond, or simply do not respond. This is a Lutheran video--I am actually in it.
@augustinian2017 To paraphrase you, i don't know what prompted you to begin writing here in the first place, being thin-skinned or wanting to impress me, but please desist. You have presented not a single shred of evidence for your position, nor even provided an epistemological infrastructure upon which your notions could be seen as truth a priori. You claim to have studied philosophy; please recall your classes and actually think before you respond, or simply do not respond.
@tommerrigan1956 Christ, you're lame Tom. Saying the same shit to everyone? Ugh. You are so boring. Play another one from 'Tom's favorite hits, He applies blanket logic to every conversation because he's retarded.'
@PunkinO1111 Pumpkin, apparently boring enough that you need to continue replying to me? Oh Pumpkin, give it a rest, you flatulating butthead. "Retarded"? Just how old are you??
@tommerrigan1956 Also, as to the the little naming war, you are as mush a Roman Catholic as I am a Lutheran. Both of these names were applied as terms of derision by our forerunners, respectively. If you wish to discuss the relationship between object and the essence and accidence thereof, specifically as the area of naming is concerned, well and good. But you must first explain the epistemic infrastructure which enables you to do so--to assert without justifying an analytic a priori foundation.
@augustinian2018 Oh, and put down your thesaurus and get a dictionary: the proper word is not so much "epistemic" as EPISTEMOLOGICAL. Of course, i wouldn't expect you to know that; frankly, i wouldn't expect you to know most truths.
@tommerrigan1956 (Chuckles) Ahhh Tom, Can't even play nice with the other Theists? My My. Aren't we a little frustrated trouble making metaphysicist busy trying to poke your big god boner in everyone's face? LMFAO!!!
@PunkinO1111 No Pumpkin, "we" are not a little frustrated, but judging by how often you are posting comments to me, apparently you are. i'm not quite sure if you are tying to convert me to your point of view, or if you are simply trying to have the last word. In either case, it is obvious my opinion of you is important. Go LYFAO: that's the childish thing to do. i'd ask how old you are but i suspect you can't count that high.
@parpaillotcamisard You, as a French Protestant, are clueless by the faith and trust in the "Roman Catholic Church" because there IS no "Roman" Catholic Church. There is, however, a CATHOLIC Church. None of the documents of Vatican II, nor "The Catholic Encyclopedia" refer to a "Roman" Catholic Church. Rather, the prefix springs from the insecurities of Protestant Apostates who are no comfortable being excluded from Catholicism. You call yourself what you choose, and let us do likewise.
@parpaillotcamisard HUGENOT, there is no "Roman Catholic Church." However, there IS a Catholic Church. Remember, Protestants are apostates and heretics, and you know what their fate is. Message from a Catholic.
Oh. One more point: you'd have a tough time demonstrating historically that very many Catholics were killed by Lutherans. Despite the fondness of Catholics and the Reformed alike for such statements, the Lutheran countries tended to go in for banishment, and killed far, far fewer religious dissenters than either of those other groups.
I personally find the reference to the very serious problem of homosexuality in the (canonically celibate) Catholic clergy a matter of sorrow, shared by thoughtful, conservative Catholics, and not something to gloat over. The child abuse problem is one which I cannot help but think is linked to the expectation of celibacy, no matter what church leaders say.
Hey musico, maybe the Pedophile child rapists you call priests are the real anti-Christ. Oh but wait lets just ignore that, and the fact that there are a growing number of HIV infected priests, oe the fact that hetero sexual men cannot remain in the seminaries because of the very open homosexuality. But lets bury our heads in our asses about that. And by the way Luther was sentenced to death by the Roman Catholic church. What would Jesus say about that? You are out of touch
I agree with augustinian2017; this hymn: Min Gud är oss en väldig borg, is one of the 325 hymns which are shared with the [Evangelical Lutheran] Church of Sweden, protestants denominations like the Baptists and Methodists, and the Catholic Church, diocese of Sweden. Obviously they do not consider it a protest hymn against their Church.
Lutherans are NOT protestants, they are reformers. But because of the sacreligous slanderous Catholic church we have been labeled protestant. Luther never protested anything in the bible, GODs word. He just protested the selling of indulgences and other man made laws and rules, especially the practice of the Catholic church extorting money from their parishoners. Not much has changed!
I'm sorry but reformers ARE protestants. And being protestant does NOT mean protesting the Holy Scriptures. I'm not going to have a row with you on this point but maybe I should just advise you, with all due respect, to go read some book about Reformation.
I'm not sorry. In our culture the word "Protestant" implies a rationalistic view of the Sacraments and a rejection of the historic liturgy. Lutherans worship using the former while holding to both baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence. We have little in common with what is commonly though of in America as "Protestantism."
The Catholic Church, by definition, cannot be slanderous in doctrine since Ratzinger is a successor of Peter, the same Peter that was appointed by Jesus to build His Church. You know, he gave the Pope the authority to bind and loose on Earth.
Buh bye unity inspired by God. Hello man-made Christian sects. Sigh.
Read Mathew 16:18 again! And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, in greek peter meas stone or pebble), and upon this rock (Jesus is the Rock). I (himself, Jesus), will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Also Luther makes it very clear that the paple seat is the very AntiChrist.
Did it ever occur to you that Luther could be an anti-christ?
Cephas is the greek for Peter, which means rock. You are Peter, upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven... I will build my Church, not churches.
The Pope doesn't put himself on the same level of God. Was Peter an anti-christ? Luther was necessary but went way too far.
The word for peter is: (strongs exhautive corcordance) G4074 Πέτρος Petros pet'-ros Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:
G3037 λίθος lithos lee'-thos Apparently a primary word; a stone (literally or figuratively):—(mill-, stumbling-) stone.
John said Antichist is already here! 1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
The anti-chrst John speaks of is widely accepted as the emperor Nero. It is believed that there have been several anti-christs, believing that one of which will gain mass power and attack Jesus' divinity so that the mass will worship him as God. No Pope has ever attacked the divinity of Jesus Christ, and no Pope will; the notion of which is absurd but is common among Protestants to give their faith justification.
We can debate the translation of Cephas all day, and it would be meaningless.
Given the context of which the phrase was used in, it is quite obvious that he's speaking to Peter and about Peter. Here is the preceding text: Whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.Thou art Peter...
Yes in Greek, Cephas can mean stone, but there is no direct translation from Aramaic to Greek for rock. Rock in Aramaic is Kepha, which is widely accepted as the word used by Jesus. Kevna is the word used for pebble, which Jesus did not use. So the translation of the greek 'Cephas' is quite meaningless, and actually meaningless in many different ways.
But the inspired Greek uses Petros for Peter, and Petra for that upon which Christ would build His Church. Apparently the Holy Spirit differs from your exegesis.
The ELCA, which recently approved the ordination of open gays, is not a Lutheran church body in any historically or theologically meaningful sense.
The decision is of course wrong. But it is doubtful if you can call a church body church if it has no priest and no bishops as the ECLA?! Not in the lutheran sense, like the Scandinavian and Baltic countries..
Bishop is a name of a particular job. If your called it "dog" and it did the same thing what s the problem. Dr. Hoffman would have been a high churchman with title in other faiths he did the same job with out such a title.
Bishop is more a name of a holy office. Without bishops in apostolic succession with S:t Peter there can be no church..that is the true lutheran position.
Karpov, that statement is incomprehensible. "Bishop" or episkopos is nothing more or less than what the NT church called the local pastor. The monarchial episcopate is a later and purely human development. And neither apostolic succession nor the fictional papacy of Peter form any part of Lutheran doctrine- or biblical doctrine!
Well I understand you say that as say that as your church - as I understand does not have any bishops. The 12 Apostles were the first bishops, after a while the bishop of Rome was considered Primes inter pares, and from there the catholics derive the Papacy. A true lutheran church do have properly ordained bishops, priests and deacons and did have it since before the Reformation.
The ELCA allowed laymen to decide what should have been decided by the clergy. You would not allow a bus driver to operate on you same applies to this many of those who oppose this are now comming over (or back) to LCMS. I would have to say having read scripture extensively that the ELCA is no longer not only not Luthern but no longer christian (yes thats a label I put them on things so I dont eat posion).
Sorry,jongartner, but you have it backwards. It was the ELCA clergy who foisted this upon the laity. And the ELCA was never Lutheran in any historically meaningful sense.
@musico747 St. Paul clearly tells us that Christ is the foundation upon which he and the other apostles build the church (Eph 2:20-22, 1Cor 3:9-11, etc.). The Early Church Fathers (Tertullian, Origen, Euesbius, Augustine, etc.) interpreted "upon this rock" to mean Jesus is the rock upon which He will build is church; the same Koine Greek phrase is found in Eph 2:20. Even St. Peter says Christ is the stone (rock) and foundation of the church built by the priesthood of believers (1Pet 2:4-9).
I understand this argument, but it truly doesn't hold water for a number of reasons. You cite the Tradition of the early church Fathers, yet from very early on it was well understood that the first Pope was Peter because of Christ's bestowal of the keys. See Irenaeus. The other Gospel accounts you cite say nothing about the keys, just authority, which is where the collegiality of the episcopate is derived. Cephas (rock) is no doubt relevant in this context, also.
@musico747 Apostolic succession of bishops, and papal succession are quite different Peter wasn't ever referred to as the pope during his life, or even two centuries after his death. Interestingly, he was not even the first person to bear the title. The Church Fathers I mentioned all predate the idea of the papacy as the patriarch of the 5 patriarchs which didn't come into existence until the end of the 4th century; the the term Pope wasn't used until about the 6th.
@musico747 Lordship among the apostles (and all disciples) is clearly forbidden by Jesus in Luke 22:24-30. One is not greater than another, but they are all in a great position of servitude; overseers and pastors are to serve as Christ Himself came to serve. Jesus didn't single out Peter (or his successors) alone to sit on a throne in his kingdom, but all of the apostles. ANY manifestation of contradiction to this or any scripture is against Christ (God's Word incarnate) & therefore antiChrist.
@DrewOchsner Ok. If one is denying explicit scripture "Hail, Peter...thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church..." then there's no greater contradiction, or in your words "anti Christ", which I find to be an absurd choice of words. Here's the blunt truth; there's a linear Tradition of collegial succession from all the disciples. Martin Luther et. al broke it, and therefore are truly contradicting the passages you quoted. Their successful Churches are thus anathema
@musico747 Your translation sounds a bit different. Is it a translation from the Vulgate? Let's work with a literal translation of the Koine Greek text in front of me into English:
18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter (grk 'Petrus' - a name), and on this rock (grk "petra" - a rock or stone) I will build My church (the church of Me) and (the) gates of Hades will not prevail against her (or 'it').
19 "And I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. And whatever you bind on earth shall occur, having already been bound in Heaven. And whatever you may loose on the earth shall be, having already been loosed in Heaven."
This special authority IS the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said these in response to Simon Peter's confession in verse 16 that Jesus is +++ "the Christ, the Son of the living God."+++
This is the "rock" upon which His church is built.
I LOVE THIS HYMN!!! I love seeing how others WORSHIP OUR LORD AND SAVIOR!!!!! THANKS!!!
Transcriptionsforwor 5 months ago
@TheLordAwaked Thank you for eventually saying something about the Gospel. Meanwhile, check out this hymn! It's entirely about the Gospel!
gasness1 7 months ago
@TheLordAwaked It's also a Christian symbol, which trumps Baal. Duh. We use it the way you use a white dove, which is a symbol for Aphrodite, the goddess of sex.
gasness1 7 months ago
I believe that this is the original hymn before Bach flattened it. It was one of the few times that he really goofed.
TheWintergreen01 11 months ago
Mutual respect goes a long way. As is it's a semi option in the near future it will be a requirement.
Ascaidh 1 year ago
@musico747 (cont.) Acts-74, Romans-386, 1Corinthians-185, 2Corinthians-71, Galatians-107, Ephesians-124, Philippians-25, Colossians-67, 1Thessalonians-10, 2Thessalonians-15, 1Timothy-52, 2Timothy-22, Titus-34, Philemon-1, Hebrews-73, James-27, 1Peter-50, 2Peter-19, 1John-31, 2 John-1, Jude-1, Revelation-13.
To deny the Word is denial of Christ. How many scriptural references are in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? To hold words of men above the Word is the antithesis of 1st commandment.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@musico747 Shreds of Truth? Here's a list of the number times that scriptural references are made in the BoC from books of the Bible:
Genesis-47, Exodus-29, Leviticus-9, Numbers-5, Deuteronomy-35, 1Samuel-12, 2Samuel-8, 1Kings-6, 2Kings-1, 1Chronicles-1, 2Chronicles-5, Nehemiah-3, Job-7, Psalms-148, Proverbs-23, Ecclesiastes-3, Isaiah-51, Jeremiah-22, Ezekiel-18, Daniel-16, Hosea-5, Jonah-3, Habakkuk-4, Zechariah-5, Malachi-3, Tobit-3, 2Maccabees-1, Matthew-268, Mark-41, Luke-79, John-171
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@musico747 I am a Missouri-Synod Lutheran. Our doctrine is laid out clearly in the Book of Concord, with every single article in our confessions of faith derived entirely from the Word which is absolute Truth (2Tim 3:16-17 & 2Pet 1:20-21). Early Church Fathers are also quoted for faithful apostolic guidance. If anyone tried to give solid scriptural support for every article of faith in Catechism of the Catholic Church to stand on, much of it would fall flat on its face. It's just not possible.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@DrewOchsner Our Doctrine is laid out very neatly as well. The Catechism is fine, but it also dumbs a lot of things down for the common man. If you're really interested in what Catholics teach, you should purchase the book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. It's a must have and it will dispel a lot of these false conceptions of the Church. God Bless!
musico747 1 year ago
@musico747 Out of curiosity, is this book itself subscribed to as an official promulgation of the Vatican, or at least commended by the Pope or other church leaders as a faithful and consistent demonstration of Church dogma? Further, does it give rigorous citation from all the sources of authority recognized by the Cc for the positions it endorses? If so, I'll buy it (previously, I thought your catechism was such a document--we recognize Luther's two catechisms as such, hence the confusion).
augustinian2017 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 It's vigorous. It includes key Latin phrases, references to scripture, early Church Fathers, and other documents that are quite frankly over my head. It includes the fundamental dogmas, hence the title, along with an explanation of the background and errors. If you want to learn definitively what the Church teaches, buy the book. Again it's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. I think it's published in both German and English.
musico747 1 year ago
@musico747 Thank you--when my funds allow it, I'll buy it. Likewise, if you would like to know where Lutherans (specifically Missouri Synod) stand and why, (as DrewOschner said) the best place to look is the Book of Concord with a Bible in hand to check its references (Patristic references are typically quoted in text when mentioned). There are several English translations available, the Kolb edition being a good scholarly edition, Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions a good layman's edition.
augustinian2017 1 year ago
@musico747 Likewise, it is possible to get BCC in the original languages. An electronic version is available from Northwestern Publishing House for $50. As a basic system of reformation doctrine, Melancthon's 1521 Loci Communes is also excellent, and the crux of Luther's teaching on Justification, outside the BCC, can be had from his Lectures/Commentary on Galatians. This was the book that moved my father to Lutheranism (after considering the Catholic church).
augustinian2017 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 Well thanks for the information. I'll have to check those sources out soon.
musico747 1 year ago
@musico747 The Catechism of the Catholic Church has little Divinely authoritative evidence to stand on. Theologians such as Luther, Melanchthon, etc. established the Book of Concord, which has what the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not (and could not) have. The documents that make up the BoC have clear evidence and proofs from Holy Scripture for every singe article of faith. We teach what we know to be the Truth, because our all of our doctrine stands most firmly the Word of God.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago 10
@DrewOchsner Who taught you that logic? Belief in God is personal! It cannot be dictated by the Pope or Martin Luther. If I follow your argument then you disown Martin Luther. He hated the idea of Catholics buying indulgences! If you are trying to sell out your BOC what difference does it have from the Catholics selling indulgences?
Nonie46 1 year ago
@musico747 Consider the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit of Truth descended on the apostles and they were baptized with the Spirit and fire. As the Spirit converted thousands of people through the apostles, was Peter the only one building Christs church? Or, was it God building His church through (not on) the apostles? The first papists were the first to depart from the apostolic church's unity. There were 5 patriarchal church bodies for several centuries before one (Rome) claimed superiority.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@DrewOchsner Those Church bodies still exist as the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and they're legitimate Churches, even though they're all not in full communion with Rome. So sleep well if you're Eastern Orthodox, but my guess is that you're Church is descendent from Martin Luther, Calvin, or some other "reformer". These aren't true Churches, though they may possess shreds of truth in their doctrine, but they're also in obstinate error.
musico747 1 year ago
Comment removed
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
Comment removed
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@musico747 Take a careful look at the original Greek text: κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅ|δου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.
- Πέτρος - capitalized because it's the name "Peter" ____ - πέτρᾳ - Koine Greek word for rock or stone ___ They are different; do you see the difference?
DrewOchsner 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
Tom, you aren't worth the time.
augustinian2017 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 According to what the Lord Jesus says in Luke 15:7, yes he is definitely worth the time. (even if he does allow the evil one to make his case a difficult one to deal with). For one to say (and believe) that any member of the body of Christ is not worth one's time, it's like saying Christ is not worth their time.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
Comment removed
augustinian2017 1 year ago
Augie, it's not the character limitation which makes you describe as your "argument" hard to follow. What i provided was not a debatable proposition but a statement of fact--check your own Bible if you dispute this.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 "I believe that there is on earth, through the whole wide world, no more than one holy, common, Christian Church, which is nothing else than the congregation, or assembly of the saints, i.e., the pious, believing men on earth, which is gathered, preserved, and ruled by the Holy Ghost, and daily increased by means of the sacraments and the Word of God." -Dr. Martin Luther
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 To refer to Christian congregations as the Roman (catholic) church (aka: Catholicism), the Evangelical catholic church (aka: true Lutheranism), or the Eastern catholic church (aka: Orthodox), etc. is like referring to separate body parts (like the hand, leg, and neck) within the body of Christ which IS the one holy catholic Church (aka: Christianity).
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
Based on that which you have written thus far, i suspect you are unfamiliar with Wittgenstein. Rather than plucking theories from the air, or demanding of language logical consistency, you should analyze language as it is actually used. So suggested Wittgenstein. Exact definitions of meaning and truth, for example, and large parts of metaphysics altogether must be given up. Far from analyzing thought and its consequences, philosophy must merely describe it.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
epis·te·mol·o·gy noun \i-ˌpis-tə-ˈmä-lə-jē\
Definition of EPISTEMOLOGY
: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity
~Merriam-Webster online dictionary
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
Comment removed
augustinian2017 1 year ago
Comment removed
augustinian2017 1 year ago
Augie, get it right: epistemic deals only with cognitive knowledge; epistemology deals with the validity and truth of that knowledge. You "know" many things, but so much of what you imagine as knowledge is rooted in falsehood. Comprende?
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 Citations?
augustinian2017 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 Well, one for speeding. (You can check out Yahoo search engine and i am sure it will give a number of possibilities.)
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
Comment removed
augustinian2017 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tommerrigan1956 This is more commonly referred in contemporary philosophy as propositional knowledge, and is the type epistemology most generally concerns itself with. The third type is essentially know-how. Central to epistemology are the relations between belief, knowledge, and certainty.
augustinian2017 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 This is more commonly referred in contemporary philosophy as propositional knowledge, and is the type epistemology most generally concerns itself with. The third type is essentially know-how. Central to epistemology are the relations between belief, knowledge, and certainty.
augustinian2017 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 Yes, i know you know how to do a search. i could have told you that without you quoting from your source. i studied epistemology as one of the required courses in my philosophy major at Notre Dame.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 Copy my text. Try to find it online. You won't. It's mine. I was in the process of typing it for you when last responded. Seeing your post, I began to past what I had already. I can keep writing if you like, or I can stop.
I am currently writing my bachelor thesis--it's largely epistemological. I've never used a thesaurus in any of the 27 credits I've had (so far) in philosophy, and I don't plan to use one while for my Master's or Ph.D either.
augustinian2017 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@augustinian2017 Perhaps you should.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 To come to an understanding of what propositional knowledge itself is, it is first necessary to examine what any example presupposes. First, it presupposes the existence of the knower; propositions that are known must be known by someone. Knowledge requires subjectivity, which presupposes consciousness. Thus, knowers must be conscious beings.
augustinian2017 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 And your point? Knowledge results from sensation and reflection, not from imagination, prejudice, or bigotry.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 My point? My usage of 'epistemic' is justified. Are there any other epistemological contentions you wish to discuss? Perhaps the difficulty physicalists face justifying the existence of propositional knowledge? This would, of course, stray into the philosophy of mind, as the chief difficulty arises from the failure of the identity thesis.
augustinian2017 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 Get off your high horse. i suspect i have at least three times as many credit hours in philosophy as you. Regarding usage of epistemic versus epistemological . . .You have not presented a single shred of evidence for your position, nor even provided the epistemic infrastructure upon which your claims could be seen as truth a priori. We both know you goofed and your goal at this point seems to justify your error. Remember, knowledge may be the result of reflection as well.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 I did actually argue for the usage--the 500 character cap probably made it hard to follow. I can send you the argument, if you desire. As I believe your comments which follow might be your own arguments, I'll refrain from commenting until I've analyzed them.
augustinian2017 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 You would do well to recall Descartes' Meditations. To refresh your memory, Descartes defines knowledge in terms of doubt. While distinguishing rigorous knowledge (scientia) and lesser grades of conviction (persuasio), he writes:
"I distinguish the two as follows: there is conviction when there remains some reason which might lead us to doubt, but knowledge is conviction based on a reason so strong that it can never be shaken by any stronger reason."
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 Before suggesting your notion of "analytical philosophy," i suggest first you study it. Perhaps then your imagined well-reasoned approach would have some cognitive merit. Your quasi epistemological theories are like leaky pipes: they do not hold water. Defend your positions with logic, not defensive criticism of that which is in opposition to them. "A man can only attain knowledge with the help of those who possess it. One must learn from him who knows." ~George Gurdjieff
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 Can you demonstrate that this is not from a result that popped up on your browser? You have failed to demonstrate at every point not only your own theological prowess but also your philosophical propensities. Even this comment is merely suggesting how knowledge is acquired; how can one know how it is acquired without knowing what knowing is. Even then, try arguing your position. That is an essential component of the nature of analytic philosophy, the only respectable approach.
augustinian2017 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 You may have convictions, but that does not mean you are right. This is NOT a "Lutheran site," as you stipulated. This is a YouTube site. You continue to state i have "failed to demonstrate" (seems to be one of your favorite phrases: could it be because that is what your professors often write on your papers?), yet you provide no cogent, limpid, or lucid rationale in defense of your positons, which generally are opinions disguised as fact. Try arguing instead of parroting.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 Can you demonstrate anything you have written is not copied and pasted from YOUR browser? You have provided no original thoughts, much less any cogent, limpid, or lucid reasoning, deductive or inductive. Your notion of reasoned argument seems merely to be criticizing that which you are unable to refute: this is not debating a proposition but emotionally defending an opinion. In your own words, try arguing your position--particularly without parroting something read online.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 HOW can one know? Is there no analytical philosophy in the curriculum you claim to have studied? Through forms, intentions, essences, notions, concepts, phantasms, images, patient intellect, sensation, and reflection. Cognitive processes — the activity of coming to know the "real" world — begins in the world, works through the senses, and culminates in the intellect. This was the basis for his epistemological theories. The basis for your "knowledge" seems to be opinion.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 You need to brush up on your Aquinas. He argued that present in the divine intellect are universal forms. On the basis of these God created the world, bringing forms to be realized, formally, in the world, particularized through matter. Through processes of cognition these forms come to be in our intellect. His empirical bent is reflected in the requirement that we proceed via deriving the forms from things, recognizing our ability to extract abstract forms involves God.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 Oh, and in answer to your question, we can continue as long as you like, although based on your subjective responses, i suspect neither one of us is going to convice the other. How you moved from "Roman" Catholic to epistemology puzzles me, but no more so than your claim to have provided well reasoned arguments in defense of your positions.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 Your profile states you have an interest in theology. You would do well to recall we are not saved by faith, but by grace, through God's love. "God is Love. Anyone who lives in love lives in God, and God lives in him." ~1st John 4:16
Any intelligent person would realize John's statement requires no interpretation or exegesis; only a fool pressing his own agenda would argue otherwise.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 You are right, Tom, in saying that God is Love as different verses from the Bible both say and have shown. The verse also says that whoever lives in love lives in God. This is where I find your arguments confusing, Tom. For almost every comment you have made toward other people is derogatory and not loving. For your sake and for other's salvation, resolve whatever issues you may have in your life so that your comments do not mock or thrash out.
DanaWelshire 1 year ago
As to one of your insults,
-ep·i·ste·mic adj. Of, relating to, or involving knowledge; cognitive.
e·piste·mo·logi·cal adj., 1. (Philosophy) concerned with or arising from epistemology, 2. (Philosophy) (of a philosophical problem) requiring an account of how knowledge of the given subject could be obtained
My usage was correct; their semantic domains overlap in the context of my post. As Epistemic is shorter, I used it.
augustinian2017 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 No, your usage in this context was not correct, just like your faulty knowledg of Catholicism (no "Roman"). But then what should i expect from an apostate? One of my degrees is in philosophy. You too may have studied philosophy; it's a shame you didn't learn anything from it.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 If you are confident that my usage was not correct, then please explain how it was not correct. Be explicit. If my usage was wrong, then I will learn the proper usage from your explanation. If you cannot explain why my usage is wrong, then you cannot know that it was wrong, and therefore cannot claim such an improper usage as a mark of my ignorance.
augustinian2017 1 year ago
@augustinian2017 Why? You appear incapable of believing anything which does not jive with your beliefs. Why would this be any different? It would be a waste of time. You don't have the first clue what epistemology is, you only know how to use a thesaurus. Get a life.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tommerrigan1956 Epistemology is, roughly, the study of knowledge. There are three main types of knowledge. Two of them were well expressed by Bertrand Russell as knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. Knowledge by acquaintance conforms to the German word kennen, whereas knowledge by description conforms to the German word wissen (Latin scio or Greek ginwskw).
augustinian2017 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 Likewise, the propositions of knowledge, excluding solipcist views, are not the object known but rather a representation of another object. Thus, there is the object of knowledge and the mental representation of that object. All propositional knowledge is mental. As such, the word epistemic, refined to the mental, was in perfect usage in my earlier post, as all propostitional knowledge is mental.
augustinian2017 1 year ago
Comment removed
augustinian2017 1 year ago
Comment removed
augustinian2017 1 year ago
Comment removed
augustinian2017 1 year ago
Once again, you are not conducting proper polemics. Did Aquinas ever merely assert his claims? Did Augustine? No--they argued their positions. You should do likewise. You must demonstrate how the semantic domain of "Lutheran" is linguistically "apostate heretic", rather than what your representation of "Lutheran" corresponds to.
augustinian2017 1 year ago
Comment removed
augustinian2017 1 year ago
I pass no judgment. Passage of judgment belongs to our Lord and He has fulfilled His promise in that respect by sending Christ, His Son, to take all of our sins upon Himself.
I appreciate all prayers, thank you, and I offer mine for you as well. I, however, will not be addressing my prayers to Mary or to any other soul in Heaven, but to our Savior and hers.
The kingdom, ours remaineth!
susichie 1 year ago
You are not a "French Protestant." You are rightly called "French Heretic." By the bye, there is no "Roman Catholic Church." Perhaps that is the source of your bewilderment. (Or is it just ignorance?) There is, however, a Catholic Church.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
Martin Luther wrote this song shortly after he wrote the hateful book "On Jews and Their Lies."It said they should be killed and their property burned.YOU CAN BUY THIS BOOK! It is demonic. Hitler loved it as he did the hatred Paul wrote about Jews.How can any followr of Jesus sing this song from an instigator of murder.Not only did he hate Jews,he hated peasants.Jesus identifies Paul in Rev2 as the false apostle and the one teaching Balaak Doctrine.Saul says all rejected him from Jesus'church
thedagonjones 1 year ago
I object to the Roman Catholic Church as much as I object to this syncopated version of ML's beautiful hymn!
nauort23 1 year ago
@nauort23 you might want to look at early copies of the written music for this great hymn. This "syncopated" version as you call it is much closer to the original than most versions. I personally love it because it is the version I grew up singing.
susichie 1 year ago
@susichie Thanks, I stand corrected. But, my opinion of the RC church stands!
nauort23 1 year ago
@nauort23 And MY opinion that you are an excommunicated apostate likely to be consigned to hell stands. Since we Catholics are not "RC," you can have any opinion you choose, even if, as in this case, it the wrong opinion. If you are not Catholic, you are an apostate, simple as that. There is still time to convert. i shall keep you in my prayers. By the way, we are saved by grace, not faith...
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 Gee, with such a stellar example of (not Roman) Catholic as yourself, it's a wonder I ever left!!!! Someone should nail you to a cross.
nauort23 1 year ago
@nauort23 And you should ask the Wizard for a brain, as you're continued petulance strains credulity. How someone can continually demonstrate ignorance of ecclesiastical history is beyond me. i must conclude that you do so intentionally, for no one can be that stupid by chance. We Catholics will continue to pray for you, Protestant Heretic.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@nauort23 And with you as such a stellar example of Protestant Apostate, it's a wonder ANYONE ever left. Someone should not merely nail you to a cross, but bury you underneath one as well. You have certainly taken to heart Jesus' command to love one's enemies. When i read your jibberish, i am reminded he also commanded us not to cast our pearls before swine. Take care, Porky.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@nauort23 Have no idea what your opinion of "the RC church" is, since there is no "Roman" Catholic Church. There is, however, a Catholic Church. However, if you insist on identifying us with names with which we do not identify ourselves, then at least be consisten and identify your denomination as "Protestant Apostate and Heretic." You may misunderstand the truth, but please do not misrepresent it soley to make yourself feel better about how Catholics identify themselves.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@nauort23 First, it is not the "Roman" Catholic Church. It is not your prerogative to name us as you choose. None of the 16 documents of Vatican II refers to "Roman" Catholic. You may be a Protestant, and in our eyes you are an apostate (get a dictionary), but we don't label you the Apostate Protestants. Let us each call ourselves as we choose. If you want to call yourself a Catholic as well, go ahead. But don't tell us we are "Roman" Catholics simply so you can feel included as a Catholic
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
I had to look at about 10 videos to find this version! So glad I found it. This is the version from my childhood. Just lovely. My church always sings the other one and I miss this older, more traditional sound. Thank you for posting.
WrenskiBaby 1 year ago
@gasness1 Thanks for posting this great video! It's nice to hear Dr. Martin Luther's original hymn tune that he wrote for this hymn with a closer translation of the German "Ein Feste Burg ist Unser Gott". I love both versions, but this one is scarcely heard here in the US though.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
So I pray, that the Lord may guide you all, in hopes that all Catholics may come to see the Truth and reject the heresies that have divided us for so long. May He cast out Satan and his demons who have been at work in the Roman Church. Lord, I pray for the pope, that you might strengthen him so he might restore Your Truth to the church as it was faithfully taught by St. Peter and St. Paul, and that he may restore his duties by making not his, but Your words the authority of the church. Amen.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@DrewOchsner Yes. Luther merely wanted to reform the catholic church.
mrstjs 1 year ago
@DrewOchsner So i pray, that the Protestant apostates may recognize the truth rests in the One Holy Catholic Church, and not in the myths perpetrated by an overly fat former Augustinian monk who married an equally tubby nun. There is no "Roman" Church: may our Lord Jesus Christ remove the scales from your eyes and the malice from your heart which makes you spread your vindictive lies. We are Catholics--not "Roman" Catholics--and you are a Protestant heretic unaware of the error of your ways.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@coolerking04 Lutheranism is merely what the catholic church should be Catholicism stripped of heresy. Luther did not want to create a new church, but as one of the world's premier theologians, his heart could not let the heresies continue unchallenged. He brought the heresy and abuses before the pope and was eventually excommunicated. Slowly (very), over the last 400+ years many of the things Luther preached, have become practiced in the RCc. They have also adopted a lot of Lutheran liturgy.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
Why is it so dark in the church?
Tcrowe421 2 years ago
Is this an all guys session? It's rare (but good) to see young men gathered for a service like this.
kensingtonpalace 2 years ago
What time signature are these guys in?
SamFerdoo 2 years ago
There is very rarely a time signature in lutheran hymnbooks. It's assumed a quarter-note gets one count.
kensingtonpalace 2 years ago
Don't try a standard time signature on this (more original) setting of A Mighty Fortress. There are measures of different lengths. You organize this like plainsong: by phrase.
rrchapman 2 years ago
Scandinavian Protestants , I entreat you , in the name of the so many martyrs of the genuine Protestant vision of Christianity , not to fall in the trap that the Roman Catholic Church , which has the unimaginable pretention to be the ONLY truly Christian Church ( !!! ) , has set , very skillfully , for you .
The Roman Catholic Hierarchy has absolutely NO BIBLICAL BASIS , whereas the diverse Protestant forms of Church organization do .
Stay faithful to the Spirit of the Reformation !!!
parpaillotcamisard 2 years ago 8
The Catholic Church actually compiled the Bible and preserved it through the dark ages. There are very few Scandinavian Protestants, the nations where Lutheranism spread to have become the most secular in the world.
The only meaningful Christianity remaining in Europe is Catholic.
coolerking04 2 years ago
Strange that in Catholic England most of the priests and monks didn't know the Lord's prayer or the 10 commandments. Religious paganism is very different from Biblical Christianity.
cpsoper 1 year ago
"Catholic England"? The official state religion of England is the Anglican Church, a Protestant group founded by King Henry during the Reformation. I am surprised you don't know that.
Roman Catholicism is Biblical Christianity.
coolerking04 1 year ago
Romanism is idolatrous, just look at the treatment of the second commandment (Ex.20.4) to see how its catechism butchers the Bible. It is a kind of Samaritanism (2Ki 17:29). At the time of the English reformation, surveys of the still Roman priesthood and monasteries found appalling ignorance of basic Bible teachings. I am British.
cpsoper 1 year ago
Oh I see you are somone to take seriously... you really exposed the whole scam we had going for so long, I guess this means I can't interest you in buying an indulgence?
I'll be praying for you.
coolerking04 1 year ago
@coolerking04 I have been praying for you and every other member of The Roman Catholic church for years. While the Vatican Councils (esp. 2nd) abolished many of the RC heresies that ignited the reformers, they further embraced some from Council of Trent. The Holy Rosary was sacrilegiously defiled by addition to the 'Hail Mary' requesting her prayers; what was once pure quotes from St. Luke's Gospel, is now a blatant defiance of God's Word.
(1 Tim 2:5 & John14:6). Eternal DEATH is very serious!
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@DrewOchsner Drew, thank you for you prayers. Interestingly, I think conservative protestants like yourself would have, in some ways, appreciated the Pre Vatican II Church a bit more (it was, for lack of better term, more hardcore than things are today.) I am not aware of any doctrines the council changed though, it mostly changed some areas of emphasis and externals. Also, yes I suppose some changes (liturgy in the vernacular) may even have been designed to appeal to Protestants.
coolerking04 1 year ago
@coolerking04 Why is it that blessed mother of Christ miraculously cries through her statues, paintings, and depictions? Why is it that the1600's a paralyzed girl vowed to Mary that she would become religious, and made the virgin mother her "mistress" after she recovered miraculously. She was showing her gratefulness to Mary, but it was God who healed her, not Mary. She entered a convent and Jesus Christ Himself appeared to St. Margaret Mary and opened up His Chest and showed her his Heart.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@DrewOchsner @coolerking04 "I want to show them the treasures of My Heart, and give them new graces to draw them from the pit of the eternal fire towards which mortal sin hurls them. In order to accomplish this, I have chosen you precisely because of your weakness and your ignorance. Thus will they see clearly that everything is coming from Me." As a Catholic, I'm sure you are familiar with the Sacred Heart story and devotions. Why do you think these happened in Catholic churches?
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@coolerking04 Roman Catholicism grew out of Biblical Christianity, but it is NOT Biblical Christianity. Their rejection of "sola scriptura" as well teaching of the primacy of papal authority and church tradition, are in fact, the very antithesis of Biblical (scriptural) Christianity. Those churches that follow "sola scriptura" by keeping the inspired true Word of God, without exception of any rituals, sacraments, and traditions set forth therein, are the one TRUE catholic (universal) Church!
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@DrewOchsner my friend the problem with sola scriptura is it is the anarchist's guide to heaven. There is really no limit to the interpretations one can draw from the Bible. Why is it that some Protestants I know want to see homosexuallity criminalized and others have gay "weddings" in their churches? That is just one example but if everyone is going off the Bible why the chaos? Why the thousands and thousands of Protestant groups always splitnering, founding new churches, and splintering again?
coolerking04 1 year ago
@coolerking04 If the Holy Bible translated accurately from the original texts, and is taken literally, in context, then these false, incomplete, doctrines would not exist. Those who reject the Holy Sacraments as anything other than the bread Eucharistic Holy Communion being the True Body and Blood, Baptism is true rebirth regeneration in and of the Holy Spirit. That is why we have bishops to unify, and pastors to teach God's Word people, and guide them in faith. Paul warns not to lose traditons
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@DrewOchsner Nice to hear Martin Luther's Original version of "A mighty fortress is our God" not the new Liberal version that is not the same. It is a shame the Liberals are ruining all religons!
pavman1000 1 year ago
@DrewOchsner Once you cast yourself off the rock of Peter you start to get tossed in the waves. I don't think you understand the sacraments. Baptism is a sacrament, so is marriage, do you reject those things?
coolerking04 1 year ago
@coolerking04 I have quite a few Catholic friends, and very few of my Catholic friends were ever taught to read scripture when they went through confirmation. The few that know scripture only know Matt 16:18-19, and maybe James 2:24 as the basis of their confession of faith. They memorize, the Apostle's Creed, the Lord's prayer, and the Holy Rosary which is a focal misdirection. St. Peter's death on the cross didn't take away the sins of the world. He does not want any of Christ's Glory.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@coolerking04 I fully understand the Sacrament's. However, we have a more rigid definition of Sacrament. So we hold only Holy Communion (Eucharist), and Baptism as holy sacraments. Marriage, reconciliation (Confession), Holy Orders, Confirmation, etc. are sacramental.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@parpaillotcamisard Well sir what proof do you have of that?
TheProudAmerican777 1 year ago
@parpaillotcamisard Moron, there is no "Roman Catholic" heirarchy. There is, however, a Pope in the long line of Popes appointed by Jesus. If you insist on calling us Catholics "Roman Catholic," then acknowledge you are Heretical Scandinavian Apostate.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@parpaillotcamisard Catholics, i entreat you, in the name of the One, Holy, Apostolic Church, do not fall into the word game ploy of this ecclesiastical neophyte. He is so ignorant that he insists on calling our Church the "Roman" Catholic Church, although none of the 16 documents of Vatican II, nor "The Catholic Encyclopedia," identify us as such. Just one more insecure Protestant heretic who believes it is his authority to identify denominations as he chooses. Very sad, actually.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@parpaillotcamisard You are right: "The Roman Catholic Hierarchy has absolutely NO BIBLICAL BASIS." This is because there IS no "Roman" Catholic Church, but there is a Catholic Church. If you insiste on prefixing our denomination with "Roman," then i would ask that you prefix your own denomination with "Heretical" or "Apostate." (Hey, if you wish to misrepresent us, then we should take a cue from you and do the same.) None of the documents of Vatican II refers to a "Roman" Catholic Church.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@parpaillotcamisard In that case, according to your logic, you are as much a heretic and apostate as i am a "Roman" Catholic. Your comment about Catholicism demonstrates not only your bigotry, but your ignorance. Stay faithful to the Gospel and not to your imaginary "truth." Remember, it was to Peter that Jesus said, "Upon this rock i will build my church." No doubt you misconstrue the meaning to suit your bias. So it goes. i can teach you, but it is up to you to learn.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
Why do you insist on a " material " conception of the apostolic succession ?
This succession is of SPIRITUAL essence , not physical or material !!!
What Jesus asked His disciples to do was to spread the gospel , and to baptize in the Name of the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit ;
The Bible contains explicitely the notion of " universal priesthood " : see I Peter 2 : 5 , etc ... All Christians are on an equal footing before God .
The Christians are the " living stones " ...
parpaillotcamisard 2 years ago
When I read your commentaries , I am , as a French Protestant , bewildered by the confidence and trust most of you have in the Roman Catholic Church .
Do you know that when it is in the majority , it simply does not tolerate other Christian churches ?
In Latin , Southern Europe , Protestants have been exterminated ( and I choose my term ) by this powerful Organisation that the Roman Catholic Church is ;
Scandinavian Protestants, be careful !!!
Message from a HUGUENOT .
parpaillotcamisard 2 years ago 5
Well I am not sure what protestants you are directions, Scandinavian Lutherans do not have anything to protest against. The catholics are our friends although we have a different tradition.
karpov89 2 years ago
@parpaillotcamisard You are not a "French Protestant." You are a French Heretic who is too stupid to know the Catholic Church does not identify itself as "Roman." However, if you choose to continue with this misidentification, then you deserve a special title: "French Asshole Apostate." Has a nice ring to it, eh?
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 well this "heretic" and "apostate" Lutheran is very sorry for you. You do our Lord a great disservice.
Lutheran, Catholic, whatever your choice. Is your display here something that you think pleases God? Does it further His church?
susichie 1 year ago
@susichie Ahh, and you believe you service our Lord by passing judgment on me? First remove the redwood tree in your own eye. Does this further the Church? i think not. It is you who do not only our God a disservice, but all who follow your example. i will pray a Hail Mary for you and hope your heart will be healed.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 I don't know what prompted you to begin writing here in the first place, but please desist. You have not presented a single shred of evidence for your position, nor even provided the epistemic infrastructure upon which your claims could be seen as truth a priori. According to your profile you studied philosophy at Notre Dame; please recall these days and actually think before you respond, or simply do not respond. This is a Lutheran video--I am actually in it.
augustinian2017 1 year ago 4
@augustinian2017 To paraphrase you, i don't know what prompted you to begin writing here in the first place, being thin-skinned or wanting to impress me, but please desist. You have presented not a single shred of evidence for your position, nor even provided an epistemological infrastructure upon which your notions could be seen as truth a priori. You claim to have studied philosophy; please recall your classes and actually think before you respond, or simply do not respond.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 Christ, you're lame Tom. Saying the same shit to everyone? Ugh. You are so boring. Play another one from 'Tom's favorite hits, He applies blanket logic to every conversation because he's retarded.'
PunkinO1111 1 year ago
@PunkinO1111 Pumpkin, apparently boring enough that you need to continue replying to me? Oh Pumpkin, give it a rest, you flatulating butthead. "Retarded"? Just how old are you??
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 Also, as to the the little naming war, you are as mush a Roman Catholic as I am a Lutheran. Both of these names were applied as terms of derision by our forerunners, respectively. If you wish to discuss the relationship between object and the essence and accidence thereof, specifically as the area of naming is concerned, well and good. But you must first explain the epistemic infrastructure which enables you to do so--to assert without justifying an analytic a priori foundation.
augustinian2018 1 year ago
@augustinian2018 Oh, and put down your thesaurus and get a dictionary: the proper word is not so much "epistemic" as EPISTEMOLOGICAL. Of course, i wouldn't expect you to know that; frankly, i wouldn't expect you to know most truths.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@tommerrigan1956 (Chuckles) Ahhh Tom, Can't even play nice with the other Theists? My My. Aren't we a little frustrated trouble making metaphysicist busy trying to poke your big god boner in everyone's face? LMFAO!!!
PunkinO1111 1 year ago
@PunkinO1111 No Pumpkin, "we" are not a little frustrated, but judging by how often you are posting comments to me, apparently you are. i'm not quite sure if you are tying to convert me to your point of view, or if you are simply trying to have the last word. In either case, it is obvious my opinion of you is important. Go LYFAO: that's the childish thing to do. i'd ask how old you are but i suspect you can't count that high.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@parpaillotcamisard You, as a French Protestant, are clueless by the faith and trust in the "Roman Catholic Church" because there IS no "Roman" Catholic Church. There is, however, a CATHOLIC Church. None of the documents of Vatican II, nor "The Catholic Encyclopedia" refer to a "Roman" Catholic Church. Rather, the prefix springs from the insecurities of Protestant Apostates who are no comfortable being excluded from Catholicism. You call yourself what you choose, and let us do likewise.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
@parpaillotcamisard HUGENOT, there is no "Roman Catholic Church." However, there IS a Catholic Church. Remember, Protestants are apostates and heretics, and you know what their fate is. Message from a Catholic.
tommerrigan1956 1 year ago
Oh. One more point: you'd have a tough time demonstrating historically that very many Catholics were killed by Lutherans. Despite the fondness of Catholics and the Reformed alike for such statements, the Lutheran countries tended to go in for banishment, and killed far, far fewer religious dissenters than either of those other groups.
bobwaters 2 years ago
I personally find the reference to the very serious problem of homosexuality in the (canonically celibate) Catholic clergy a matter of sorrow, shared by thoughtful, conservative Catholics, and not something to gloat over. The child abuse problem is one which I cannot help but think is linked to the expectation of celibacy, no matter what church leaders say.
bobwaters 2 years ago
Soli Deo Gloria, This is the hymn of Reform or Hymn of the Victory. Gloria to God.
pertencoacristo 2 years ago
The music to the hymn is not exactly the normal one??!
karpov89 2 years ago
It's the original version. The more frequently sung version is influenced by Bach's arrangement.
bobwaters 2 years ago
HERMOSO
BELLO
MARAVILLOSO
latercerapalabra 2 years ago
Hey musico, maybe the Pedophile child rapists you call priests are the real anti-Christ. Oh but wait lets just ignore that, and the fact that there are a growing number of HIV infected priests, oe the fact that hetero sexual men cannot remain in the seminaries because of the very open homosexuality. But lets bury our heads in our asses about that. And by the way Luther was sentenced to death by the Roman Catholic church. What would Jesus say about that? You are out of touch
nytmstr 2 years ago
I agree with augustinian2017; this hymn: Min Gud är oss en väldig borg, is one of the 325 hymns which are shared with the [Evangelical Lutheran] Church of Sweden, protestants denominations like the Baptists and Methodists, and the Catholic Church, diocese of Sweden. Obviously they do not consider it a protest hymn against their Church.
karpov89 2 years ago
Hey!!! protestants sing quite well, and with harmony, not unisson. Good!!!
Ritzounett 2 years ago
Not protestants. Lutherans.
bobwaters 2 years ago
Lutherans ARE protestants!!!
Ritzounett 2 years ago 2
Lutherans are NOT protestants, they are reformers. But because of the sacreligous slanderous Catholic church we have been labeled protestant. Luther never protested anything in the bible, GODs word. He just protested the selling of indulgences and other man made laws and rules, especially the practice of the Catholic church extorting money from their parishoners. Not much has changed!
nytmstr 2 years ago
I'm sorry but reformers ARE protestants. And being protestant does NOT mean protesting the Holy Scriptures. I'm not going to have a row with you on this point but maybe I should just advise you, with all due respect, to go read some book about Reformation.
Ritzounett 2 years ago
I'm not sorry. In our culture the word "Protestant" implies a rationalistic view of the Sacraments and a rejection of the historic liturgy. Lutherans worship using the former while holding to both baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence. We have little in common with what is commonly though of in America as "Protestantism."
bobwaters 2 years ago
all right, hear hear, I guess there's no way I can explain you my point.
Ritzounett 2 years ago
The Catholic Church, by definition, cannot be slanderous in doctrine since Ratzinger is a successor of Peter, the same Peter that was appointed by Jesus to build His Church. You know, he gave the Pope the authority to bind and loose on Earth.
Buh bye unity inspired by God. Hello man-made Christian sects. Sigh.
musico747 2 years ago
Read Mathew 16:18 again! And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, in greek peter meas stone or pebble), and upon this rock (Jesus is the Rock). I (himself, Jesus), will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Also Luther makes it very clear that the paple seat is the very AntiChrist.
RockMongrel49 2 years ago
Did it ever occur to you that Luther could be an anti-christ?
Cephas is the greek for Peter, which means rock. You are Peter, upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven... I will build my Church, not churches.
The Pope doesn't put himself on the same level of God. Was Peter an anti-christ? Luther was necessary but went way too far.
musico747 2 years ago
The word for peter is: (strongs exhautive corcordance) G4074 Πέτρος Petros pet'-ros Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:
G3037 λίθος lithos lee'-thos Apparently a primary word; a stone (literally or figuratively):—(mill-, stumbling-) stone.
Peter was not "The Rock" but stone.
RockMongrel49 2 years ago
Jesus was and is "The Rock"
1 Cor 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Also There is only one church.
Ephesians 4:5-6 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
RockMongrel49 2 years ago
Futhermore
John said Antichist is already here! 1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
RockMongrel49 2 years ago
The anti-chrst John speaks of is widely accepted as the emperor Nero. It is believed that there have been several anti-christs, believing that one of which will gain mass power and attack Jesus' divinity so that the mass will worship him as God. No Pope has ever attacked the divinity of Jesus Christ, and no Pope will; the notion of which is absurd but is common among Protestants to give their faith justification.
musico747 2 years ago
We can debate the translation of Cephas all day, and it would be meaningless.
Given the context of which the phrase was used in, it is quite obvious that he's speaking to Peter and about Peter. Here is the preceding text: Whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.Thou art Peter...
musico747 2 years ago
Yes in Greek, Cephas can mean stone, but there is no direct translation from Aramaic to Greek for rock. Rock in Aramaic is Kepha, which is widely accepted as the word used by Jesus. Kevna is the word used for pebble, which Jesus did not use. So the translation of the greek 'Cephas' is quite meaningless, and actually meaningless in many different ways.
musico747 2 years ago
But the inspired Greek uses Petros for Peter, and Petra for that upon which Christ would build His Church. Apparently the Holy Spirit differs from your exegesis.
The ELCA, which recently approved the ordination of open gays, is not a Lutheran church body in any historically or theologically meaningful sense.
bobwaters 2 years ago
The decision is of course wrong. But it is doubtful if you can call a church body church if it has no priest and no bishops as the ECLA?! Not in the lutheran sense, like the Scandinavian and Baltic countries..
karpov89 2 years ago
Bishop is a name of a particular job. If your called it "dog" and it did the same thing what s the problem. Dr. Hoffman would have been a high churchman with title in other faiths he did the same job with out such a title.
jongartner 2 years ago
Bishop is more a name of a holy office. Without bishops in apostolic succession with S:t Peter there can be no church..that is the true lutheran position.
karpov89 2 years ago
Karpov, that statement is incomprehensible. "Bishop" or episkopos is nothing more or less than what the NT church called the local pastor. The monarchial episcopate is a later and purely human development. And neither apostolic succession nor the fictional papacy of Peter form any part of Lutheran doctrine- or biblical doctrine!
bobwaters 2 years ago
Well I understand you say that as say that as your church - as I understand does not have any bishops. The 12 Apostles were the first bishops, after a while the bishop of Rome was considered Primes inter pares, and from there the catholics derive the Papacy. A true lutheran church do have properly ordained bishops, priests and deacons and did have it since before the Reformation.
karpov89 2 years ago
The ELCA allowed laymen to decide what should have been decided by the clergy. You would not allow a bus driver to operate on you same applies to this many of those who oppose this are now comming over (or back) to LCMS. I would have to say having read scripture extensively that the ELCA is no longer not only not Luthern but no longer christian (yes thats a label I put them on things so I dont eat posion).
jongartner 2 years ago
Sorry,jongartner, but you have it backwards. It was the ELCA clergy who foisted this upon the laity. And the ELCA was never Lutheran in any historically meaningful sense.
bobwaters 2 years ago
@musico747 St. Paul clearly tells us that Christ is the foundation upon which he and the other apostles build the church (Eph 2:20-22, 1Cor 3:9-11, etc.). The Early Church Fathers (Tertullian, Origen, Euesbius, Augustine, etc.) interpreted "upon this rock" to mean Jesus is the rock upon which He will build is church; the same Koine Greek phrase is found in Eph 2:20. Even St. Peter says Christ is the stone (rock) and foundation of the church built by the priesthood of believers (1Pet 2:4-9).
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@DrewOchsner
I understand this argument, but it truly doesn't hold water for a number of reasons. You cite the Tradition of the early church Fathers, yet from very early on it was well understood that the first Pope was Peter because of Christ's bestowal of the keys. See Irenaeus. The other Gospel accounts you cite say nothing about the keys, just authority, which is where the collegiality of the episcopate is derived. Cephas (rock) is no doubt relevant in this context, also.
musico747 1 year ago
@musico747 Apostolic succession of bishops, and papal succession are quite different Peter wasn't ever referred to as the pope during his life, or even two centuries after his death. Interestingly, he was not even the first person to bear the title. The Church Fathers I mentioned all predate the idea of the papacy as the patriarch of the 5 patriarchs which didn't come into existence until the end of the 4th century; the the term Pope wasn't used until about the 6th.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@musico747 Lordship among the apostles (and all disciples) is clearly forbidden by Jesus in Luke 22:24-30. One is not greater than another, but they are all in a great position of servitude; overseers and pastors are to serve as Christ Himself came to serve. Jesus didn't single out Peter (or his successors) alone to sit on a throne in his kingdom, but all of the apostles. ANY manifestation of contradiction to this or any scripture is against Christ (God's Word incarnate) & therefore antiChrist.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@DrewOchsner Ok. If one is denying explicit scripture "Hail, Peter...thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church..." then there's no greater contradiction, or in your words "anti Christ", which I find to be an absurd choice of words. Here's the blunt truth; there's a linear Tradition of collegial succession from all the disciples. Martin Luther et. al broke it, and therefore are truly contradicting the passages you quoted. Their successful Churches are thus anathema
musico747 1 year ago
@musico747 Your translation sounds a bit different. Is it a translation from the Vulgate? Let's work with a literal translation of the Koine Greek text in front of me into English:
18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter (grk 'Petrus' - a name), and on this rock (grk "petra" - a rock or stone) I will build My church (the church of Me) and (the) gates of Hades will not prevail against her (or 'it').
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
@musico747
19 "And I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. And whatever you bind on earth shall occur, having already been bound in Heaven. And whatever you may loose on the earth shall be, having already been loosed in Heaven."
This special authority IS the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said these in response to Simon Peter's confession in verse 16 that Jesus is +++ "the Christ, the Son of the living God."+++
This is the "rock" upon which His church is built.
DrewOchsner 1 year ago
<